Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA109 (LHR-BOS) Returns To LHR (security Reason)  
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3747 times:

Quote:
A US-bound plane carrying 240 passengers was turned around mid-flight for security reasons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5253930.stm

I thought the "advance passenger information list" was supposed to be checked and questioned before the flight took off??

This must have cost AA quite a bit of $$$ to return to LHR mid flight!


Lee


Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3737 times:

Thats good though it cost AA thousands of dollars. I wonder what the reason was.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineVarig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1605 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3680 times:

a no fly list??
so how come they were allowed to fly in the 1st place?
at one point DHS and software subcontractors should explain what kind of mess they are doing
causing extra costs and inconvenience to airlines and pax is cool, but it happens on a regular basis that supposed suspects generating flight diversions are just normal pax



AF TW AA NW DL UA CO BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ PC RG IW SE
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

Quoting Varig md-11 (Reply 2):
a no fly list??
so how come they were allowed to fly in the 1st place?

I thought the whole idea was to check the passengers BEFORE the plane takes off.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineVenezuela747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1429 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

Yeah why was he given a boarding pass anyways? I checked theTSA website a week ago for something I needed to carry on board and it said "How do I know I'm not on the no-fly list?"...."If you are given a boarding pass then you are not on the nofly list" I think the US, should have informed AA of this person who was going to be on their flight at least prior to departure not 5 hours in the flight.

Which brings up this question.....most of the time you are on the no fly list because your name resembles one of a terrorist. So if you get to the check-in and they sau you can't fly you are on the no fly list. How long does it take for them to allow you to fly, is it just a few minutes, few hours, few days. And is the airline responsible for rebooking you on the next available flight once your name has cleared?



ROLL TIDE!!!
User currently offlineVarig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1605 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

last time I boarded AA to MIA from CDG, my passport was swiped into the computer at check in

I believed that if I were on a no fly list, an alarm would ring and I would have been electrocuted on the spot...seriously I thought a message would appear to the agent indicating check in could not be completed

but again software developpers could explain better what is the purpose of the cr!p they sold to DHS and airlines



AF TW AA NW DL UA CO BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ PC RG IW SE
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8171 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3511 times:

Quoting BMIFlyer (Thread starter):
I thought the "advance passenger information list" was supposed to be checked and questioned before the flight took off??



Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 3):
I thought the whole idea was to check the passengers BEFORE the plane takes off.

No indeedy, it takes three hours to check I think. I certainly know it's not complete when the plane takes off usually, and it has long been a topic of discussion that for fuel and general efficiency, it should be possible to check within a couple of minutes of the flight closing at check in. Hasn't been achieved yet. That is why planes get turned around in flight, such as that KLM 747 going to Mexico City, I think got as far as Canada before being sent back to Amsterdam. Long day's flying just to end up still in Holland (nice place though it is).

Btw the BBC said it wasn't necessarily related to terrorism, not implying a mechanical cause, just that maybe there was an organised crime gangster onboard or an angry Cuban music lawyer with a Platinum Admiral card didn't get upgraded to First and freaked out or something. Tugmaster Dave will know fer shore.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineMika From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2881 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

As it appears, this security system would have done nothing to stop any of the flights on 9/11 from being hijacked and flown into buildings. Who came up with this stuff? Hijacking an A/C and using it for malevolence certainly does not take 3+ hours if you are determined to complete your terrorist mission and do it fairly quickly.


 Confused


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3410 times:

Quoting BMIFlyer (Thread starter):
I thought the "advance passenger information list" was supposed to be checked and questioned before the flight took off??

In theory they want that. In practice, it can't always be done. Which is hard to believe in this day of "internet tubes" and such...

Quoting Mika (Reply 7):
Hijacking an A/C and using it for malevolence certainly does not take 3+ hours if you are determined to complete your terrorist mission and do it fairly quickly.

Mixing two issues here. One is to stop hijackings. One supposes (falsely) that the added pre-screening will prevent weapons from getting on the plane, and that new procedures will prevent hijackings.

But the international screening is to prevent baddies from getting into the USA to do damage at a later date. They are not so worried that the plane will blow up as much as that the person will get to the USA and disappear into the system, then popup later like many of the 19 9/11 guys.

Thus turning the jet around and dropping them back at the POI means it's the country who let them in's problem.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMika From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2881 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3369 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Mixing two issues here. One is to stop hijackings. One supposes (falsely) that the added pre-screening will prevent weapons from getting on the plane, and that new procedures will prevent hijackings.

But the international screening is to prevent baddies from getting into the USA to do damage at a later date. They are not so worried that the plane will blow up as much as that the person will get to the USA and disappear into the system, then popup later like many of the 19 9/11 guys.

Thus turning the jet around and dropping them back at the POI means it's the country who let them in's problem.

I see, thanks for enlightening me. It does seem that the system can use some improvement but i´m sure that lies in it´s future, as i understand this thing is in the baby stage at this point.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting Mika (Reply 9):
I see, thanks for enlightening me. It does seem that the system can use some improvement but i´m sure that lies in it´s future, as i understand this thing is in the baby stage at this point.

And since it's a government contracted thing, that future is, oh, I don't know, 500 years away?  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 905 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

It just shows that the system is not falible I really despair at the US goverment,if fact at any government that puts in computor systems that fail to do the job and them balme ervyone else!

User currently offlineFbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3713 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Mixing two issues here. One is to stop hijackings. One supposes (falsely) that the added pre-screening will prevent weapons from getting on the plane, and that new procedures will prevent hijackings.

But the international screening is to prevent baddies from getting into the USA to do damage at a later date. They are not so worried that the plane will blow up as much as that the person will get to the USA and disappear into the system, then popup later like many of the 19 9/11 guys.

Thus turning the jet around and dropping them back at the POI means it's the country who let them in's problem.

If they weren't ultimately concerned with them blowing up or causing harm aboard AA109 (which I guess they aren't sure of) then why weren't the suspicious people (probably infants or 1970s musicians  Wink) bounced back to the UK off BOS immigration costing AA $5k instead of many multiples of that rebooking passengers and sending a 777 back to LHR?

Sometimes the procedures and regulations of the country I live in baffle me...



"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
User currently offlineSumma767 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
But the international screening is to prevent baddies from getting into the USA to do damage at a later date. They are not so worried that the plane will blow up as much as that the person will get to the USA and disappear into the system, then popup later like many of the 19 9/11 guys.

But if it is not as if there is no control at immigration entry once in the USA!
If they find a name that they have queries about, they can ask questions once they have landed, and they need not let them in!

I find it very funny to see how the US is damaging its own airline industry and tourism with policies of paranoia.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Quoting Fbgdavidson (Reply 12):
If they weren't ultimately concerned with them blowing up or causing harm aboard AA109 (which I guess they aren't sure of) then why weren't the suspicious people (probably infants or 1970s musicians  ) bounced back to the UK off BOS immigration costing AA $5k instead of many multiples of that rebooking passengers and sending a 777 back to LHR?

Hey, I agree, but the no-fly list is the no-fly list, and while not everyone on it is going to blow up the plane, they turn the plane around anyway.

Frankly, if the person was going to blow up the plane, how does turning it around help stop that? And if they were going to hijack it, they can still do so and just turn it back around, right?

So, obviously, the reason to turn the plane around is to send the person back to where they boarded.

If they landed in the USA, then we could say 'send him/her back' but the other country can say 'we don't want him/her either' and then there's a problem. By turning the plane around, it remains the problem of the country who let him in/on in the first place...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3005 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
And since it's a government contracted thing, that future is, oh, I don't know, 500 years away?

And over budget.

I wonder if AA will give them a refund?



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

What I can't understand is why the US simply doesn't adopt the Australian System.

You can apply for an ETA online http://www.eta.immi.gov.au/ or have the Travel Agent or airline do it for you.

When you check in for the flight to Australia (I've even had it checked in Geneva on a connecting flight) the ETA is checked against the passport and a board/don't board message is sent. If it's board, you get your boarding card. If not, you don't.

This allows the Australians to pre-check your name / details against their lists and determine before you check-in if you can travel.


User currently offlineLoggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

I think it should be renamed the "No flying after 3 hours list"


There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7754 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

If it is a false alarm, do they put you on the next flight.

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2634 times:

One problem with the no-fly list is similar names. So a need to input and have searches done on the other info, and even then you could have 2 or more people on the aircarft with no-fly profiles but are not the people that are the 'no-fly' ones.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Aer Lingus SNN To BOS Returns To SNN posted Thu Jun 23 2005 13:15:28 by Gulfstream
NW DC-10 Returns To AMS For ''security Reasons'' posted Wed Aug 23 2006 12:46:10 by Airbuseric
UA Flight Diverted To BOS Due To Security posted Wed Aug 16 2006 16:37:28 by FURUREFA
SAA 744 Returns To LHR With Cracked Window posted Mon May 8 2006 09:35:13 by Andz
LHR T4 Security posted Mon Mar 6 2006 14:23:52 by YZ717
BA 747-400 Returns To LHR posted Wed Jan 12 2005 20:56:43 by Rams777
UA957 Returns To LHR With Hydraulic Probs.. posted Wed Apr 14 2004 04:38:33 by BY188B
UA...BOS-ORD-LHR posted Sat Mar 20 2004 17:36:05 by OmShanti
BA Cancels LHR Flight To Riyadh - Security Alert posted Fri Jan 2 2004 21:16:28 by Jaspike
BA LHR-DEN Returns To A 744 posted Mon Aug 19 2002 23:30:37 by Shawn Patrick